Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Premier Soccer League


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. This AfD ties together a bunch of articles that vary widely as to notability. Renominating them separately would allow for better discussion of their respective merits. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Southern Premier Soccer League

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bunch of articles on a non notable minor amateur soccer league, and its teams and associated pages. The league has only had some minor, routine coverage in local sources (match results), nothing sufficient to meet WP:N (teams and leagues aren't covered in WP:NSPORTS). Already, one of the team articles was deleted after Articles for deletion/Galveston Pirate SC, a season article at Articles for deletion/2011 SPSL Spring-Summer Season, and some templates and two articles on the cup competition as well: Articles for deletion/SPSL Cup. Texas Lonestrikers and 2011-12 SPSL Winter Season were deleted through ProD, SPSL rivalry cups as a speedy. I have, together with the main article, also nominated all remaining teams and some related articles:

*Regals FC (withdrawn)
 * Rio Grande Valley Ocelots FC
 * All-time Rio Grande Valley Bravos FC roster
 * Memphis Rogues (2010)
 * Corpus Christi Fuel
 * Tulsa Lobos FC
 * Club América Academy


 * 2010–11 SPSL season Fram (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This move to delete the SPSL from Wiki simply does not make sense. The SPSL is one of only 3 USASA sanctioned regional leagues. One of the teams participated in this year's US Open Cup, losing to the USL Pro's Charleston Battery 2-0. The match was tied 0-0 at half time and the Battery were awarded a BS PK early in the 2nd half. The Regals also easily beat the PDL New Oreleans Jesters in New Orleans. Not bad for a bunch of guys that "are not good enough to play in college."

The SPSL is seeking a move to USASA's new "inter-regional" status in time for the 2012-2013 season. This will include the addition of a number of west coast teams in California, Arizona, and Nevada. Former US World Cup player Desmond Armstrong has been exteneded an invitation to join the league and form a new Alabama, Mississippi, Tenn, and Georiga division.

I may not be a Wiki expert, but it is more than obvious that this move is simply politically motivated.

If one of the wiki experts would like to contact me directly, feel free to do so. Stephen Heisler, Director, SPSL. stephenheisler@aol.com

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.121.227.170 (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep some - The WP:FOOTYN guidelines states: "all leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable". As Regals FC participated in this year's US Open Cup, it is acceptable for me that there is an article on that club and the fifth tier league. I am in favour of deleting the other articles as non-notable, unless the subject is a club that has also participated in the cup. The above comment from the SPSL Director, who I see has also edited some of the articles, indicates some additional WP:CONFLICT issues with these. Deserter 1   talk   15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regals FC definitely needs to stay as the team competed in this year's US Open Cup, which gives the team notability alongside every other team which has competed in it over the years.JonBroxton (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all as no evidence of notability; however, Regals FC should remain as it meets WP:FOOTYN by having competed in the national cup. GiantSnowman 21:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the Regals from this discussion, thanks to both of you for pointing this out. Fram (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Subject appears to be notable, but the league page definitely needs references, as well as the team pages. A quick google search finds several articles from the Brownsville TX newspaper on one of the teams in the league.  Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Comment: Since I voted already, from what I can tell, teams in this league are eligible for qualifying rounds in the US Open Cup, which might suggest notability. I don't know if all teams are eligible or just the league champion though. I also think semi-protection could be removed on the article since its a bit out of date and the main editor on the article doesn't have a regular account. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The cup is "open to all United States Soccer Federation affiliated teams, from amateur adult club teams to the professional clubs". If all amateur teams are eligible for the qualifying stages, then that is not an indication of notability for the league or the clubs. The one club that did reach the "real" cup is already withdrawn from the nom. Fram (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware there is no reason why leagues with amateur teams can't be considered notable. As I said above, if all members of this league are indeed eligible to participate in the US Open Cup, then I think the league itself can be considered notable. To clarify, I agree that the other articles (with the exception of Regals FC) can be deleted as non-notable. Deserter 1   talk   13:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest Rio Grande Valley Ocelots FC be kept because I think they would be considered notable since they previously played in USL Premier Development League. Other team articles probably aren't worth keeping.  The All-Time Rio Grande Valley Ocelots article coud be deleted since its just a bunch of names with red links.  No need fo ran extra article there.  Mateinsixtynine (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Ocelots didn't play in the PDL. The team which played in the PDL was the Rio Grande Valley Bravos FC, and the owner of the Ocelots bought the franchise rights from the Bravos owner after the Bravos had already folded. As far as the USOC is concerned, standard practice for US soccer editors has been that (with the exception of the teams that play in the PDL and the NPSL) amateur teams only become notable when they qualify for the first round of the tournament, not simply by taking part in their USASA regional qualification process. The Regals attained that criteria this year, but none of the other teams have (yet). JonBroxton (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.